Bob Debates Atheist Reggie Finley Pt 1

[Vaquero45]

It took me a while to understand how this could be, but now I agree that frewill and foreknowledge are compatible.

It is easier to understand if you realize that someone can have knowledge of what you did yesterday, and this does not mean you did it without freewill.

It is more difficult to realize that someone (a god) could have knowledge of what you will do tomorrow without violating your free will to do it.

Hi SUTG, been trying to get back to this all day, work is a nightmare.

Knight made it easy for me, I agree with his entire post. (thanks Knight! :up

I can't reconcile entire foreknowledge with free will. I don't see any way aside from mysticism to know the entire future without planning it, and therefore being "responsible" ( :shocked: hope Hilston isn't watching ) for all choices. (For the record, I understood Hilston's rejection of the term, I'm using it in a more common/loose way than he accepts)

(added in edit: ) :doh: I didn't even notice Bob's post, his was ok too.

 

[Vaquero45]

Great job btw Bob, I sent a link for this show to a friend. I thought it was a nice nutshell introduction for the OV. :up:

 

[amjiva]

amjiva, I realize that you have no obligation to follow my writings or teachings, but for more than 20 years I've taught on this subject regarding the future. However, you overstated your case. I did not I imply that there could only be two options, Predestined, or NOT predestined. Of course I am aware of what Christians call Simple Foreknowledge, a supposed ability to see the future without having predestined it. There is no such ability. But regardless (whether there is or not), I did NOT imply that such a theory does not exist. If you listen to the discussion more carefully, you will see that you have run with a presupposition, and heard what you expected to hear.

The word "imply" refers to the fact that you only addressed those two arguments and presume to promote your side by showing weakness in the other. If in fact there is a third option, then showing weakness in the fatalist, "God is responsible for all events" option does not necessarily show strength in yours.

You seem to believe that the third option is not possible. Why is that? Why can't an all-knowing, transcendental God exist alongside our relative decision making capacity?

Even if we Ignore all the intellectual gymnastics necessary to believe in "Simple Foreknowledge," even SF does not minimize the truth that in such a reality, the Future is Utterly Settled, and not even God could do anything to alter that fatalistic future; and certainly therefore, neither could you. Of course, this is all nonsense.

Or, God has already altered the seemingly "fatalistic future" because He acts on the platform of absolute time, which does not exist in sequence with our time (as I explained in previous post). In this reality, every act personally performed by God is an eternal pastime; they are going on eternally and are a product of His inconceivable, internal pleasure potency. On this absolute platform, God desires and those desires are simultaneously rendered action without any needed endeavor, and in our relative conception of time there is no tracing out the history of God's desires. On this absolute platform, each thing is non-different from every other thing. For example, on this relative platform, the name "water" and the substance water are different. If I am thirsty, no matter how many times I chant "water, water, water" I will remain thirsty. On the absolute platform, the name and the substance are the same. Superficially or comparatively there still remains a distinction between the name and substance of a thing on the absolute platform. The problem is that when considering the transcendental nature of God, most people are thinking relative to their own conception of time. And so they conclude out of negation that a transcendental God would be inactive and impersonal.

 

[SUTG]

I can't reconcile entire foreknowledge with free will. I don't see any way aside from mysticism to know the entire future without planning it, and therefore being "responsible" ( :shocked: hope Hilston isn't watching ) for all choices.

I used to feel the same way, but then realized a different way of looking at it. It is a subtle argument, and can be tough to get at first, but then there is an "a-ha!" moment, similar to when someone first understands Hume after misunderstanding him the first couple of times.

If you're honestly interested, we can discuss over PM. keep in mind that for me as an atheist, it is more of just a logical puzzle: Is there any way a being can know our future without violating our free will?

 

[Lighthouse]

Is there any way a being can know our future without violating our free will?

The being does not violate the will, nor does the knowledge of the being. However, if said being can know, how can they know? The only way is if it has already happened, and if that is the case, how is it free will if the decision was made before we got to the point to make it?

 

[GuySmiley]

The word "imply" refers to the fact that you only addressed those two arguments and presume to promote your side by showing weakness in the other. If in fact there is a third option, then showing weakness in the fatalist, "God is responsible for all events" option does not necessarily show strength in yours.

The show was not meant to be an exhaustive study on all the views of foreknowledge. The atheist uses Calvinism to attack Christianity, so Bob was informing him of Bob's veiw, which answers those objections. Its ok to tell someone your views that answer their objections without including every other known view also.

 

[Just Tom]

All this foreknowledge bickering misses the best point of the whole half an hour.

When reggie decided that there can't be any absolutes because different cultures have different morals and Bob responded that in his scenario it assumes predestination and forgets about mans "free will".

Brilliant Simply brilliant..

I was able to use it today in a conversation with a student who is taking a sociology class and he brought up the morality is determined by the culture and not absoulte because all cultures differ in what they accept as wright or wrong. When I hit him with the free will argument he saw the fallacy of the position that he was being taught...

BRILLIANT SIMPLY BRILLIANT!!!!

 

[amjiva]

The show was not meant to be an exhaustive study on all the views of foreknowledge. The atheist uses Calvinism to attack Christianity, so Bob was informing him of Bob's veiw, which answers those objections. Its ok to tell someone your views that answer their objections without including every other known view also.

It may answer those particular objections, but it basically reduces the Supreme Being to some semi-powerful, semi-knowing entity subject to relative time. I agree that it is okay to tell someone your views without addressing every other one, but Mr. Enyart seemed to stress the problems with the Calvinist view as a means to promote his side. Anyway, if I had been online during the debate, I would have had some questions to ask. I'm sorry I missed it.